Sandpiper Planning Report 090915 · 132007.1181.02

                              MCU to establish Industrial Business (Type 2 Production, alteration,
                                                                                           Change  repackaging
                                                                                                     to Development
                                                                                                                and repairing)
                                                                                                                     Approval
                                                                                            Lot 11 Gateway
                                                                                       Sandpiper    Hastings Drive, Noosaville
                                                                                                             St, Noosa Heads



                                                                                           Change to Development Approval
7.         State Planning Interests                                                     Sandpiper Hastings St, Noosa Heads

The only matter raised within state planning instruments is whether the development complies with criteria in
s 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act with respect to a permissible change of a development approval. The
table below discusses the compliance with each of the relevant criteria.

Permissible Change Criteria       Assessment                                             Complies
The change to the approval        The proposal is for minor structural                   Yes
would not result in a             modifications to increase the utility of the
substantially different           premises for the approved use.
development
If the application for the        The proposal requires only assessment of               Yes
approval were remade the          amenity and aesthetics and compliance with
change would not require          Planning Scheme performance criteria and
referral to additional            requires no consideration of external agencies
concurrence agencies
If the application for the        The existing Material Change of Use Approval           Yes
approval were remade the          required impact assessment.
change would not be for an
approval for assessable
development that previously
did not require impact –
require impact assessment
If the application for the        The minor change to roof-line to facilitate the        Yes
approval were remade the          practical utilisation of the roof top terrace is
change would not be for an        within the permissible site lines and was
approval for assessable           within the height limitations of the scheme at
development that previously       the time. The change from the approved ‘soft’
required impact assessment—       to a ‘hard’ roof in a location unlikely to be
be likely, in the responsible     viewed by neighbouring properties is unlikely
entity’s opinion, to cause a      to have been cause for objection.
person to make a properly
made submission objecting to
the proposed change, if the
circumstances allowed
If the application for the        The minor architectural modifications to               Yes
approval were remade the          facilitate a consistent use meet the general
change would not cause            desired outcomes for the zone, while the
development to which the          building height in storeys does not meet one
approval relates to include any   of the specific outcomes it is a matter of code
prohibited development.           relaxation, not prohibition.



8.         SEQ Regional Plan
The subject site is located within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. The
proposed use is consistent with the SEQ Regional Plans intent for the urban footprint.


                                                                                                                       14
SAN VER 090915